DPPt/HGSS Pokecharms Alternate Competetive Rules?

[Doctor Oak]

K, as someone pointed out in the main rules topic, our rules are fairly unconventional and aimed more at diversity and entertainingly 'different' battles. Which is good, and I continue to heartily encourage people to use more than just the bog standard teams that EVERYONE uses. There are 493 (And then some, in a way) Pokemon out there and it's nice to see some more interesting uses for the ones that don't generally make it onto things like Netbattle or Shoddy or whatever.

However, I appreciate, especially with the tournament in the summer coming up, that some people may be looking for a point of reference to a more serious competitive ruleset as an alternative.

So, if you're up for it - let me know and post your recommendations for this new alternative ruleset. If people also want to try and come up with OverUsed, UnderUsed or whatever lists to use in these rules - please feel free too. I'd like this topic to be as central a hub for competitive battling here on 'Charms as possible.

 

[KoL]

Here's a general template of stuff that is usually considered "official," to my knowledge.

The following Pokemon are banned from use completely:

- Mewtwo
- Mew
- Ho-Oh
- Lugia
- Groudon
- Kyogre
- Rayquaza
- Latios
- Deoxys (all Formes)
- Dialga
- Palkia
- Giratina (both Formes)
- Manaphy
- Darkrai
- Arceus
- Wobbuffet

Sky Shaymin is usually banned too, although I don't think there's ever been any solid conclusion put with the thing.

The following Clauses are usually in effect as well:

Species Clause: No two Pokemon of the same species allowed in a team. Pokemon in the same evolutionary line are considered to be the same species, such as Charmander and Charizard, although I'm not sure if it always covers the Eeveelutions or things like Gardevoir and Gallade.

Sleep Clause: If you put an opponent's Pokemon to sleep, you cannot put another of your opponent's Pokemon to sleep unless the first Pokemon has already awakened. Self-inflicted Sleep due to Rest, as well as the effect from Effect Spore don't count under this, so if one of your opponent's Pokemon is put to sleep via either of these effects, you are allowed to put a second Pokemon to sleep.

Evasion Clause: Use of the moves Double Team and Minimize is illegal. Using the moves through Metronome is legal (albeit very rare.)

Item Clause: All Pokemon on a team must each be holding a different item.

Self-KO Clause: If the last Pokemon on a player's team uses Explosion, and KOs the last remaining Pokemon on their opponent's team to force a draw, the player that used Explosion is deemed the loser. This also covers Selfdestruct, Perish Song and I think Destiny Bond as well, although I'm not certain on the latter.

Soul Dew Clause: Not really a clause, per se, but use of Soul Dew is generally banned.

Hax Item Clause: Use of the following items is prohibited:

- Focus Band
- Quick Claw
- King's Rock
- Razor Fang

Something like that, although it's a vague one that isn't always upheld, but common enough to be worth mentioning.

That's a very basic outline of competitive rules at best, and I certainly wouldn't just go along with all of that without consulting other members first.

 

[Havak]

As the previous user posted, a lot of those are the standard ones. I'll probably be repeating a lot of it, but I'll list the general (and most tested) competitive rules.

Banned Pokémon

Arceus, Darkrai, Deoxys (all formes), Dialga, Garchomp, Giratina (both formes), Groudon, Ho-oh, Kyogre, Latios, Lugia, Manaphy, Mew, Mewtwo, Palkia, Rayquaza, Shaymin Sky Forme, Wobbuffet, and Wynaut.

Smogon test basically everything that seems like it'd have a viable shout at being allowed in Standard OU, rather than just banning things that may seem too strong. Deoxys Speed Forme has been tested in OU before, but was eventually judged Uber. Garchomp was tested for a prolonged period of time and judged Uber. Shaymin Sky Forme went through a test early on when Platinum was released, but it was later decided to be removed for Standard play and will be re-tested at a later date. Wobbuffet has been tested slightly, but it's evident that the Shadow Tag Ability is ridiculous, hence Wynaut being currently on the ban list despite its apparent frailness. Latias and Latios were recently tested, Latias voted OU, while Latios voted Uber. Manaphy is currently being tested and by mid-April will have been decided on.

Plans for the future are likely to involve testing of Wynaut, Deoxys-D, and possibly Ho-oh. Who knows what else could happen.

I don't want to come across as elitist, especially since I'm a member of the staff on Smogon, but I just feel that the rules decided upon there are the most viable competitive rules. We spend so much time fine tuning and testing that it's obvious to see that we're doing the best thing for competitive Pokémon. While Smogon is testing and finding the best possible competitive rules, is there any other point in another forum trying to emulate this and think they can do better? I really don't think so. I'm not saying everyone should listen to Smogon, but the amount of work put in shows how comitted Smogon are. I do not have a problem with your forum having your own set of rules by any means, but I think they should rather be an alternative, not the 'suggested', so to speak. Perhaps you should emulate the Smogon rules here, but accompany it with a message like such: "It's recommened that you discuss rules with your opponent before the match, as diversity here is encouraged, so limiting certain Pokémon is never frowned upon."

Every other Legendary (and every other Pokémon for that matter) has been in Standard OU or below since, well forever, and no one has ever suggested that they should be as they've never proved too strong. Thus, they're Standard OU and should be.

Banned Items

Soul Dew

Soul Dew is currently the only banned Item as at-the-moment, Latias with Soul Dew is judged to be Uber. Latias with Soul Dew will be tested, but it's very likely to be voted Uber in that regard.

Clauses

Evasion Clause, Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Self-KO Clause, Sleep Clause, Species Clause

Item Clause is generally not deemed a necessary competitive rule. While at first it may seem as though it increases diversity (like Species Clause), it can also reduce it at the same time. Many Pokémon rely on the same kinds of sets to really function well, when you remove their options of items, you can also remove their viability, thus reducing diversity and making this rule seem more pointless. You can also completely remove the point of full on offensive or defensive teams with limitations of one Life Orb or one Leftovers, reducing competitiveness even more. However, in Double Battles, I feel there is more variety involved and they're often more strategic, so enforcing Item Clause here is something I approve of; though it doesn't matter much either way.
___________________________________________________________________

However, I am also a fan of the Official Nintendo Tournament rules, but much prefer them in Double Battles to Single Battles, as Nintendo seem to.

Banned Pokémon

Arceus, Celebi, Darkrai, Deoxys (all formes), Dialga, Giratina (both formes), Groudon, Ho-oh, Jirachi, Kyogre, Lugia, Manaphy, Mew, Mewtwo, Palkia, Phione, Rayquaza, Rotom (all formes), Shaymin (both formes).

*Dragonite, Tyranitar

I don't understand the Rotom ban, since there are many Pokémon with slight alternate formes which are allowed. However, it's possible that the new formes of Giratina, Shaymin and Rotom do not work on Battle Revolution, which Nintendo will use for some rounds of their tournaments. Phione is again silly, but no one would use it anyway.

*Dragonite and Tyranitar are banned in the current installments of Nintendo tournaments as there is a level 50 limit, while you can only attain a level 55 version of both of them. However, you can get a level 50 Event Dragonite from Toys R Us in America, which is allowed. Also remember that Regigigas is level 1 in Platinum, while Heatran is level 1 in Platinum, so they're now allowed.

Banned Items

Nintendo must feel that this makes Latias and Latios too good, so it's banned.

Banned Moves

Judgement

Arceus is banned and not even legally available yet, so nothing can have this attack.

Clauses

I'm not fully sure which Clauses Nintendo implement, but since DS consoles and Platinum will be used for a lot of the next tournament, I'm assuming for at least this section, there will be no clauses at all. I'm unsure of what would happen in the event of a Self-KO Clause happening here, but I think this should be in play with a judge ready to determine.

However, if you're running a tournament, I think you're free to choose which Clauses you wish even if you;re using Nintendo's rules.

 

[Doctor Oak]

I do not have a problem with your forum having your own set of rules by any means, but I think they should rather be an alternative, not the 'suggested', so to speak. Perhaps you should emulate the Smogon rules here, but accompany it with a message like such: "It's recommened that you discuss rules with your opponent before the match, as diversity here is encouraged, so limiting certain Pokémon is never frowned upon."

Just to pick up on this note - while we set up the Pokecharms rules as a basic default (which pretty much just followed the 2007 World Championships rules and then moved on from there) they are by no means really enforced in WiFi battles. Even I myself have a team that breaks them (two restricted pokemon) and all of this is A-OK so long as people point out that they're following a slightly different rule set.

Originally, it was meant to be extremely basic so people could use it as a really simple point of reference for all battles (so people didn't have to constantly repost the same things in every topic). But as the Generation has worn on, there has been a lot of movements to restrict the use of certain Pokemon in basic battling here, more out of the simple yearning for different teams to battle than the constant need to keep up with broken teams.

We'd like to keep them as the main point of basic reference purely to help promote people here trying something different with their teams. I think out of all the people that use this WiFi forum, only a handful actual put in any competitive battle time so we're by no means in the same audience as Smogon would be - which does actually give us a bit of a license for being different purely for the sake of being different.

I'd like to have this set up though so that people chould either say they're using Pokecharms standard rules or Pokecharms competitive rules or whatever else they plan on using - but basically just to give that extra point of easy reference to people that want a more conventional competitive battling rule set. And it can never be a bad thing to have more options available.

Since Smogon is built entirely around competitive battling, any input from that angle is clearly appreciated and carries some weight, so no - I don't consider it elitist and welcome your views.

 

[Havak]

Ah, okay.

Well, I'll volunteer to commandeer (or just write) a competitive rules topic for you if you're interested. Though, that's dependant on whether you'd prefer two seperate rules topics (which may be more of a hassel than a benefit or simply be redundant) or have something written as an addition to the current rules (which could also get confusing for some players). I'd be sure to update with any changes from Smogon's rules, or discuss them first if you'd prfer.

 

[Doctor Oak]

What I may do is make a new rules topic (and simply keep these discussion topics for them to keep them open for further improvement as and when necessary) that JUST has the various rules in it. We could also keep a log of the rules used in tournaments like the Baby Cup we had at winter so people can reference those easily if they wanted to battle using those too.

There are plans for a massive shot in the arm for organising battles of varying complexities and levels that will begin taking place over the summer - but for now, we'll continue to do it this way.

This topic should basically just be a dumping point for all the standard competitive rules where our users can discuss and agree on an overall working set that we can set for standard competitive use. Once that's done, I will put them into action in their new topic.

 

[KoL]

One thing to keep in mind that, like Doctor Oak said, 'Charms is, competitively speaking, a far more lax environment than Smogon is. I myself am one of the few people here to use a team that is almost entirely OU. For that reason, the rules should probably be more lax than what Smogon would have as well, since you'd essentially be enforcing rules that wouldn't need to exist anyway. Most of the Pokemon that are and were being tested for OU/Uber very rarely appear here at all - I'm the only member here I've known to ever use Garchomp, for instance. I think something resembling a combination of the Smogon/Nintendo rules modified to be appropriate for the environment here would be best.

 

[Doctor Oak]

I would then propose these as a set for evaluation:

[size=20pt]Banned Pokemon[/size]

Arceus, Celebi, Darkrai, Deoxys (all formes), Dialga, Giratina (both formes), Groudon, Ho-oh, Jirachi, Kyogre, Lugia, Manaphy, Mew, Mewtwo, Palkia, Phione, Rayquaza, Rotom (all formes), Shaymin (both formes).

Following the official Nintendo Ruleset - I don't think Rotom should -remain- banned, but it's very clearly unfair to allow it until Platinum is out in all regions and the event for Rotom is freely available worldwide. Maybe also include Latios?

[size=20pt]Banned items[/size]

Soul Dew

Don't see any reason to shake the status quo here - I also don't see there being much call for the 'Hax' items to be banned or restricted, but if there is, prove me wrong.

[size=20pt]Clauses[/size]

(Evasion Clause), Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Self-KO Clause, Sleep Clause, Species Clause

I think it would be a good idea to have the main rule set keep the item clause while this one doesn't. I've bracketed the Evasion Clause one because I recall a discussion coming up before on whether or not it should be in place at all, so I place that in the hands of further discussion. I, however, don't really see it as that much of an issue to require banning the moves. It's NOT that broken a strategy, it can just get boring. In most cases that can either be dealt with via a time limit or a simple agreement not to spam the hell out of evasion moves, but meh.

I don't believe there's any need for stuff like banning Judgement (after all, the only Pokemon that can learn it is banned anyway...). I also think that, as KOL points out, banning Pokemon like Garchomp isn't that necessary either (not for here in this instance anyway). 'Course, if people consider it to be an uber, there's no reason they couldn't point towards this rule set and then simply add "No Garchomp".

 

[Havak]

Hmm, okay.

Well, I'd definitely want people to discuss Wobbuffet, because when used correctly it's basically going to score either a free KO, or turn whatever Pokémon you have out into set-up bait. However, as you said with Garchomp, if they're very rarely used here, you can just leave it up to the players in the match to decide whether to allow the use of certain Pokémon. I'd just hate to see lesser competitive (or newer) players really taken advantage of (even though this would probably happen extremely rarely here, if not at all).

I'm personally a fan of the Official Nintendo Pokémom Ban List, even though it removes 5 (10) [possibly 11] completely viable Standard OU Pokémon and allows 3 _more_ Uber Pokémon in return.

I think the rules you've selected above would be a good start, with the option of either player saying "no Garchomp, Latios or Wobbuffet". I also think that if members choose the competitive rules they shouldn't be allowed to restrict things like they are in the PokeCharms rules. Seem fair?

The clauses are fine, but sadly you cannot 'enforce' Freeze Clause on Wi-Fi, it's not fair for someone to be disqualified if they're using an Ice-type attack and it just so happens to Freeze more than one of their opponent's Pokémon; it can't be controlled. Evasion Clause is debatable but if people want to waste time and rely more-so on luck, then so be it. I'm not too fussed if that's really banned or not. The rest are easily enforced by mutual agreement.

 

[Doctor Oak]

If I recall correctly, PBR has a freeze clause built into it. I think it'd be pretty viable to, say, bracket it and say it should be enforced where possible but can be lax otherwise.

 

[Havak]

Yeh, I'm pretty sure it's possible to enforce every clause on Pokémon Battle Revolution. I'd just expect more people to use Diamond, Pearl, or Platinum. Platinum's weather glitch kind of makes it an edgy thing to play though, and if you use Diamond / Pearl with Platinum's move tutors, Scizor becomes a lot more difficult to beat with one of the better counters for it (Rotom appliance formes) gone.

That's another discussion for another time, though.

That set of rules seems pretty fair.

 

[KoL]

My main argument for enforcing Evasion Clause is a Double Battle I had where I got wiped out and my partner had a Cresselia with Double Team. The Cresselia set up 6 Double Teams with ease and it took around 45 minutes for Cresselia to eventually die, but only after Cresselia itself used up all its PP and suicided due to Struggle's recoil damage. The fact that Double Team and Minimize can cause a battle to drag on that much, including the fact that that 45 minute duration was literally nothing but Cresselia draining all its PP away into nothingness whilst the opponent tried and repeatedly failed to hit the thing has led me to detest the use of the move. Double Team effectively did nothing here but suck all the fun out of the battle and turn it into the most long and boring battle I've ever had to sit through. If anything, Double Team and Minimize should be banned for this reason alone. Competitive Smash bans stalling tactics that remove the fun out of the match, and I think the same should be done here.

Also, I agree with Havak on Wobbuffet - it should definitely be banned, especially now that Custap Berry is legal which allows Wobbuffet to use Destiny Bond once before biting the dust. Although Wobbuffet isn't unbeatable, it almost always manages to take one opponent down with ease if it switches in on the right victim, and if used correctly it can inflict severe damage to entire teams with little difficulty. Whether or not people would use the thing could be taken into consideration, but Wobbuffet in my opinion is a lot more dangerous than Garchomp is and a lot easier to abuse, plus it has been considered uber for a very long time now, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ban the thing by default.

Latios should be taken into consideration, since Ruko mentioned Specs Latios wielding Draco Meteor in the chat to me not too long ago as an idea, which sounds devastating coming from something with Latios's power and speed. I can't say how powerful it is since I've never used nor faced the thing, although grouping Latios with Garchomp as a "limbo" Pokemon of sorts between uber and OU seems reasonable to me.

 

[Havak]

Choice Specs Latios actually is quite devastating.

Timid Choice Specs Latios Draco Meteor on 252 HP / 0 SpD Tyranitar
56.68 - 66.83% Damage

Timid Choice Specs Latios -2 SpA Draco Meteor on 252 HP / 0 SpD Tyranitar
28.47 - 33.66% Damage

Now, with Stealth Rock in play (which is most likely would be) there is a chance of Tyranitar being 2HKOed by two consective Draco Meteors.

Timid Choice Specs Latios Surf on 252 HP / 0 SpD Tyranitar
51.49 - 60.89% Damage

If you predict correctly and manage hit Tyranitar with Surf instead, you will 2HKO it even through its sandstorm SpD boost.

Tyranitar is one of the better 'counters' or 'checks' to Latios while it's in OU, and knowing you can be 2HKOed rather easily by a Timid version is a bit scary. You can come in and Pursuit Latios at any time (if you can get a free switch) but evidently, it's most likely to KO something on your team first or do big damage to Tyranitar in the process.

Timid Choice Specs Latios Draco Meteor on 252 HP / 0 SpD Scizor
59.88% - 70.64% Damage

Scizor still takes big damage from Draco Meteor on the switch-in, and without Special Defence EVs you are always 2HKOed (even after the SpA drop) if Stealth Rock is down. This forces you to have to Bullet Punch if you switch in on an attack rather than after something else is KOed. If you have to Bullet Punch, your opponent can predict and switch out, and you definitely cannot switch in on Latios again with your Scizor. You can try to predict as well, but Bullet Punch may not OHKO so the odds are not in your favour really.

Surf does 54.36% - 64.24% Damage to that same Scizor, so again you are 2HKOed.

252 HP Metagross fairs a bit better, but there's still a 100% chance that Latios will 2HKO with Surf if Stealth Rock is in play.

Those are the three best 'counters' to Latios IMO, as they can all Pursuit, but all are 2HKOed relatively easily. Blissey obviously stops the Choice Specs Latios dead in its tracks, but Latios can also use Trick to hinder Blissey. If it's a Calm Mind Latios with Refresh or Safeguard and Recover, then there is a chance that Latios can beat Blissey as well (even if Latias is better at this set).

 

[Magpie]

I don't believe there's any need for stuff like banning Judgement (after all, the only Pokemon that can learn it is banned anyway...). I also think that, as KOL points out, banning Pokemon like Garchomp isn't that necessary either (not for here in this instance anyway). 'Course, if people consider it to be an uber, there's no reason they couldn't point towards this rule set and then simply add "No Garchomp".

Not really adding much towards any new/alternate rules, but I'd just like to say that I agree with not banning Pokemon like Garchomp. I fought and against KoL's Garchomp and while he did win, I wouldn't say it was down to Garchomp. I was down to awesomeness and a certain moonlight Pokemon that shall not be named XD

I like the 'Charms competitive rules. They cover all the basics to battling and make it easy to just say to an opponent "I'm following 'Charms standard rules." The only rule I never liked was that Eevee's evolutions were included in species clause, in which case because of the system here, it'd just be a case of asking whether my opponent minded if I had two or not.

As we are rather relaxed about battling, I personally don't see a need per say for alternate rules. Those that come here and want a 'serious' battle tend to include their rules in their battle topics, which in all fairness are rarely that different to the 'Charms rules. Then again, I don't take battles overly seriously anyway. They're meant to be fun, and I feel that 'Charms rules keep them that way. I suppose in a proper tournament, where people have travelled a long way etc to be there, a more Set-in-Stone rule set would make sense.

 

[Linkachu]

Personally, I'd like to see the item clause enforced in all competitive battling rules used around here. It would be incredibly annoying if certain items were allowed to be spammed throughout teams. I've never felt restricted by it either, so I can't really comment on it causing certain teams to fall apart...

But then again, if someone really wanted to have a rules set without the held item restriction I guess it's their choice. I can just say for certain that I'd never use said rule set, and I'd hate to see it enforced in our tournaments.

On a random note: What are the official Nintendo rules related to the item clause?

KoL and Ruko both also know my thoughts on the evasion clause... which is basically that it doesn't bother me either way. I'm used to dealing with those types of attacks.

 

[KoL]

The main reason for me encouraging Item Clause is because it stops players from going down the "all 6 Pokemon have Leftovers" route that plagued much of Gen III. Although it isn't anywhere near as viable now to do something like that, it still happens, and you can just tell the person couldn't be bothered to think about what items they wanted to use. Granted it does restrict all-stall teams and things like that, but that's what rules are meant to do - provide restrictions.

From what I know, the Item Clause enforced by Nintendo forces all the Pokemon in your team to each be holding a different item. I found it out the hard way when Colosseum punted me out for using two copies of Leftovers. :S

 

[Linkachu]

Granted it does restrict all-stall teams and things like that, but that's what rules are meant to do - provide restrictions.

Seconded.

[quote author=King of Lucario link=topic=5827.msg95201#msg95201 date=1238675396]
From what I know, the Item Clause enforced by Nintendo forces all the Pokemon in your team to each be holding a different item. I found it out the hard way when Colosseum punted me out for using two copies of Leftovers. :S
[/quote]

That was my understanding as well, which just furthers my point to keep it enforced for tournaments on Pokecharms.

I honestly agree with the others that I like our basic rules, and the only true issue I have with them might be the banned/restricted Pokemon lists. For that reason, what I'd like to see more than a brand new set of rules for competitive battling is keeping all of our base rules (possibly adding any clauses we didn't already have in place) but adding alternatives to the restricted Pokemon lists (ie. restriction set no, 1, restriction set no. 2, and so on). That way, it'd be simple business to say which Pokemon you'd like restricted and which you don't, and we wouldn't really be losing what we already have.

And just for quick reference of our current rules:
[quote author=Doctor Oak link=topic=1989.msg19635#msg19635 date=1180723212]

• No more than one Pokemon of each species on a team
• No more than one of each item
• No Soul Dew
• A tie is equivalent to a loss for both players
• No Hax'd Pokemon. Pokemon with attacks that they simply cannot learn, or abilities that they cannot have, or with hax'd stats will see you disqualified

[/quote]

So pretty well the only thing that needs to be ironed out is the clauses (which Doctor Oak posted above) and the banned/restricted lists.

 

[KoL]

I think as far as the restricted Pokemon lists go, for a big tournament setting such as the Manchester one, they shouldn't be there with the exception of the ban list, which itself needs modifying (Cresselia, Heatran and Regigigas mostly.) The current rules here were made mostly for battles between members, which works fine, but in a big tournament setting like this one should hopefully be, there's just too many rules. Whilst it will encourage diversity in teams for those who take part, a lot of people would think "All these rules!? Forget this!" and then walk off. I can't say I agree with that mentality, but disagreeing with it doesn't make it disappear.

I'd say the only thing that really needs to be done is loosen the restrictions and throw in the more "official" clauses.

 

[Havak]

Okay, quite a few replies now.

First of all, Judgement should be banned just because Smeargle can learn it (even if it's not going to be strong by any means). It's just that if someone has a Smeargle with Judgement, you know they've hacked Arceus since it's not even available in Japan yet. If you know they've hacked Arceus (even just the Azure Flute) you cannot be sure of what else they have hacked on their game. So I think it's best to rid of it completely until Arceus is available in at least Japan, preferably in all three main regions though (JAP, USA, EUR).

I don't see why you should limit Leftovers (or Items usage) in general just because it makes stall teams viable. Stall teams are a perfectly viable strategy and usually need the majority of the team to hold Leftovers to be successful. Mirroring this, offensive teams often need more than one Life Orb or sometimes two of the same Choice item. Limiting another whole genre of team and forcing everyone to play in a more balanced style is more restricting and less competitive than anything else in the game IMO. Nintendo implement Item Clause in 2vs2 Battles because it's much easier to come up with more complex strategies and it opens up the usage of a lot more Pokémon as well as items. If there is a 2vs2 Tournament here, by all menas use Item Clause. But for Single Battles, I'd strongly advise not having Item Clause as a default rule.

I don't particularly like the 'A tie is equivalent to a loss for both players' rule especially since Self-KO Clause will be in effect? It defies the point of Self-KO Clause as if you use Explosion, Destiny Bond, Perish Song or whatever else with your last Pokémon to force a tie, you should lose under the Self-KO Clause. If you use a recoil move or have a Life Orb, which results in both Pokémon being KOed, the player that attacked to KO the opposing Pokémon is the winner.

 

[Linkachu]

Nintendo implement Item Clause in 2vs2 Battles because it's much easier to come up with more complex strategies and it opens up the usage of a lot more Pokémon as well as items. If there is a 2vs2 Tournament here, by all menas use Item Clause. But for Single Battles, I'd strongly advise not having Item Clause as a default rule.

You mentioned the 2v2, but how do they handle single battles? No item clause at all?

 

[Havak]

As far as I'm aware, since the implement of Generation Three, every Official Nintendo Tournament has been Double Battles. Thus, we don't know what they'd do in Single Battles. You'd expect them to again utilize Item Clause, but I wouldn't be so sure.

The Battle Tower has Item Clause, but that's only 3on3 matches, where pure stall teams cannot possibly cater for being able to counter everything at once.

 

[Linkachu]

It's not the only one. PBR and Pokemon Colosseum use it, too. Personally, I've never felt restricted by it and I -do- build teams in a competitive sense, but again that's just me. I'd be willing to put it up to a vote if people do feel it's a bit of a controversy, but I wouldn't want to see it simply removed otherwise.

Edit: Going by what Doctor Oak & Havak wrote above, there's always the 3rd option: have it as an optional clause, just as the rest are. That way everyone could be satisfied and set their battles up as they saw fit.

Still, might be worth a vote to determine which would be the default settings.

 

[Xatu]

Just throwing a suggestion out there:
Would it be possible to change the Item clause to allow no more than two of any particular item to be used?

 

[Ruko]

I vote for item clause to be in place. I DO know that of the shoddy servers, only smogon has the item clause off by default. Everywhere else I've battled has had the item clause on.

You say it's too restricting, but any -good- player can work around any restriction thrown at them, so long as everyone has the same restrictions. Very very few pokemon come with only one viable set.

Also, I've recently changed my attitude toward Garchomp being voted uber, and still believe that Tyranitar should be.. so I'd like to see the two of those on the ban list... at the very least, one of them to prevent them from being paired. And I'd like to see Regigigas open for free use; it's really only a threat in double battles where its ability can be gotten rid of, otherwise it's hard enough to keep alive for five turns.

If you use a recoil move or have a Life Orb, which results in both Pokémon being KOed, the player that attacked to KO the opposing Pokémon is the winner.

I strongly disagree with this. A tie should be a tie, and require a rematch. If Explosion, or some other self-KO move caused the tie, then that player should lose, but otherwise I say rematch. Choosing a self damaging attack over a different one that kills both of you is no different than using explosion in my opinion. Life Orb is a tad different, as you wouldn't plan for that scenario, but I still say rematch.

 

[Havak]

Ruko, that's just how Self-KO Clause works. So I don't think you can disagree with it lol.

If you use Explosion or Selfdestruct, the game reduces your HP to 0 before your opponent's, which obviously means you should lose. Perish Song and Destiny Bond are moves that explicitly force a tie and you're again, basically fainting 'before' your opponent. Any recoil attack or usage of Life Orb should not mean the match is a strict tie or a rematch should be played. You're taking the initiative to win the game. Let's face it, if you can KO your opponent without fainting yourself, you would do it. Sometimes it can be forced upon you. I understand that the moves above (even though they're Self-KO moves) may be your only chance to faint your opponent in some cases, but you -know- that you will faint. There's a -chance- you will faint if you use recoil or Life Orb and I think this shows more intent to actually -win- rather than force a tie. Just use Self-KO Clause the way it actually works in-game lol.

I simply don't ever see "a -good- player can work around any restriction" as a valid argument. That just simply implies that any restriction or addition can be put in place and if you're good it won't matter. I don't think there's any point in limiting things in a competitive game that are proven to be not broken. But if it comes to a majority vote then fair enough.

Tyranitar is generally easy to stop. Garchomp is not. If you're intent on one being banned, then it should definitely be Garchomp.

 

[Doctor Oak]

I think the majority is definitely in favour of keeping the item clause.

 

[KoL]

Ruko, that's just how Self-KO Clause works. So I don't think you can disagree with it lol.

Actually, from what I've heard about Self-KO Clause, it was merely designed to stop players from forcing a draw through the use of a blatant suicide move such as Perish Song or Explosion - it didn't completely outlaw scenarios where, according to the game, a draw would occur. I'm pretty sure I've seen this clause used in some of the 3D games, and it effectively prevents you from using such moves to kill your last Pokemon by making them fail every time you attempt them. So saying "that's just how it works" evidently isn't true since, from what I've seen, it appears that someone has changed that clause from what Nintendo made it to be to what it is considered to be now. I think we're forgetting here that it's the game that declares the result of the match, and minus the scenario where one player tries to force a draw by suiciding, knowing full well they'd lose otherwise, it should be kept that way.

I simply don't ever see "a -good- player can work around any restriction" as a valid argument. That just simply implies that any restriction or addition can be put in place and if you're good it won't matter. I don't think there's any point in limiting things in a competitive game that are proven to be not broken. But if it comes to a majority vote then fair enough.

I think the key word missing from that argument would be "reasonable," and since the vast majority of players play with Item Clause, it hardly seems like an unreasonable thing to have. As far as that argument goes, I could declare a "No Leftovers Clause" where Leftovers is completely banned, and while people could work around it, it wouldn't be reasonable for such a ban to exist. As for limiting things that aren't broken, that could be said for quite a few clauses, such as Species Clause for instance - it merely encourages (or forces, if you want to put it that way) diversity within the game.

 

[Ruko]

I think I misworded something there XD

I strongly disagree with this. A tie should be a tie, and require a rematch. If Explosion, or some other self-KO move caused the tie, then that player should lose, but otherwise I say rematch. Choosing a self damaging attack over a different one that kills both of you is no different than using explosion in my opinion. Life Orb is a tad different, as you wouldn't plan for that scenario, but I still say rematch.

Lemme change that bolded part a bit... I don't think that someone using Destiny Bond, Explosion, or Perish song should be granted another chance. I meant the people using life orbs on their last pokemon. Using a recoil move should absolutely NOT declare the recoil-user victor, however. I'm still for counting that as a tie, but that seems very similar to using a self-KO move like explosion.

A lot of clauses we regard as official aren't recognized by nintendo at all.. and I can argue with one I disagree on especially since we aren't even Nintendo. We can write our own clauses.. which I plan on doing soon similar to how KoL did in his post. Smogon is probably the best known area for metagame, but Smogon is not -THE- metagame. I don't see how you can declare the person who self-KO'd victor over the person they KO'd in any circumstance.

 

[Linkachu]

I think as far as the restricted Pokemon lists go, for a big tournament setting such as the Manchester one, they shouldn't be there with the exception of the ban list, which itself needs modifying (Cresselia, Heatran and Regigigas mostly.) The current rules here were made mostly for battles between members, which works fine, but in a big tournament setting like this one should hopefully be, there's just too many rules.

I meant to comment on this before...

Like KoL said, while the restrictions work fine for tournaments around the Pokecharms website and within friendly matches, I think for pubicly run tournaments it's best to just exclude the restricted lists altogether. Having the single ban list amoung the rest of the rules should suffice and cause the least amount of confusion. It seems a number of the competitors replying to the actual news update about the Manchester tournament want to see the official league rules left in place anyways, just adapted for single battles.

 

[Carmen Lopez]

Although this means absolutely nothing coming from me, I'd like to see the situation in which you and your opponent die by you using a recoil move being declared a tie instead of an auto-loss for the Recoil user. For one, what if you really didn't plan to take yourself out and by complete hax the move criticals and you end up dying as well.

Or (if you're like me) you're a terrible judge of how powerful a move will end up being and you accidentally take yourself out as well. I see this as a different situation that using Explosion, Destiny Bond, ect, because these moves will ensure that you die.

Sure you can come up with all kinds of cases and situations and that's why I think it should just be a tie--simply because of all the variables involved in a KO move.

Or am I just completely wrong...

 

[Ruko]

declared a tie instead of an auto-loss for the Recoil user

Supposedly, the recoil user is supposed to win, not auto-lose.

And you're saying the same thing I am as far as my thoughts on the self-KO clause.